Where’s the issue? A quad IS a round robin. It’s just not a Type R, since that type specifically requires 6+ as well as all play all. What change do you propose to make?
You just implied two things that the rules don’t say, namely:
- A quad with two sections is not a round robin with 4+ players, despite the rules defining a quad as a round robin; and
- That Type R requires all play all despite only saying it requires a round robin with 6+ players.
What category is the double round robin played with 4 players under the correspondence status? They are constantly played as the Walter Muir series games on the ICCF server.
-
It is easy for any club director who is serious to advance to the local level. Go for it! I try to encourage it by offering FREE entry to my tournaments for active Local Level +.
-
The rule book wording of should not vs must/not and not expected to draw gives club/local directors some “legal” leeway.
-
I knew a club director who did the K-12 state championship 400+ players - and regularly did 60-150 player K-12 tournaments. No issues. I did a few K-12 tournaments as a local that wound up drawing >100. I am guessing a good percentage of senior directors might of had a experience credit of >100 players along the way.
For swiss club events forget about G$ – Do based on % of PAID EF to limit your ri$k - use a spreadsheet to model. I just advertise something like at least 80% of paid entry fees returned as prizes and noodle it on a spreadsheet depending on the turnout. I can send you the sheet that I use if you want to check it out.
If everyone is paying same EF then $Based/players or $B/points scored can be used, too w/o ri$k.
tl;dr answer:
All quads are round robins.
Not all round robins qualify as R events for TD certification/advancement purposes.
1 Like
Yeah. Per the rulebook it has to be a round robin with 6+ players averaging 1400 rating. Per members of the TDCC, that has to be a single section of 6+ players averaging 1400 rating, which would be easy enough to write into the rulebook.
I think at one point, 30 years or so ago, the requirement was that it be an eight player RR. I know because at the time I was thinking of moving up to ANTD and I had recently directed the Nebraska Invitational, a 6 player tournament with an average rating of 2050, but was told it didn’t meet the R requirement.
Like here: https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/tdcertificationrules-june1-2024.pdf
TDs should get into the habit of looking for information they need on the TD Information page, especially since there will be a lot of changes and new information during the Leago rollout:
https://new.uschess.org/tournament-directors
Will the “Leago Rollout” be revealed at https://new.uschess.org/tournament-directors after August 15 or so?
I don’t know what information will be made available where or when, I’m working mostly on back-end issues like cleaning up data, migration issues and making sure the ratings that it computes are correct. But just looking at the tournament directors landing page, it will need a lot of updates to reflect the Leago rollout.
The 13 screen shots that were shown at the TDCC workshop last night were primarily focused on the TD interface. The presentation on 7/31 will be put together by the US Chess communications staff.
…that single section requirement is not in the definition of Category R in the document you linked…
…which has the same language as the kindle rule book:
- Category R.
A US Chess rated over-the-board round robin tournament of six or more rated entrants with a mean rating of at least 1400, with the mean being calculated by using the ratings of the players in the applicable ratings supplement on the starting date of the event.
That language speaks in terms of “entrants” to a “round robin tournament” only.
If you told me you ran a tournament with 6 entrants, wouldn’t it be reasonable for me to assume that meant 6 separate players as opposed to 2 players who entered 3 time each?
Ulmont,
What are you trying to find out? What are you asking exactly again?
Quads are not excluded by “entrants”. As discussed before above, the rules define quads as a round robin, and a two section quad has 6+ players. I understand it is not the intent that a two section quad be a Cat R tournament, but I believe that the rules as written say that a two section quad of 1400+ rating should qualify.
I’m asking that the definition of quad / round robin in the rule book, and / or Category R in either the rule book or the most current TD qualification rules, be updated to reflect intent accurately.
Ulmont,
What you need to do then is first reword the rule in the rule book how it should be worded. Second, come up with a rationale why it needs to be changed in words. Third, create an ADM and find a delegate that will support your ADM to the upcoming government meeting in August. If you don’t have enough time to find your state’s delegate to represent your ADM, then ask him or her if it could be directly given to the Rules Committee through the chair person or even Tim Just himself for the Rules Committee to consider changing the rule.
Your state Chess chapter has at least one delegate which may be going to the national government meeting in August. Contact a delegate by phone, if possible, and ask him or her if he or she will sponsor your ADM at the national meeting. You can get the template to create an ADM from the Govt related USCF staff member Ms. Rose McMahon. You can get her contact information from the US Chess Staff page of the new.uschess.org web site. If you need help getting up with your delegate, I might can help a little, but ask Ms. McMahon if she can help with that too. Lastly, I don’t know if it is too late for ADMs to be submitted for this year’s meeting.
Ken,
I appreciate your earnest attempt to educate me about the process.
I do not care enough to embark on a multi year process to change a fairly small corner case (the number of people who could organize a two section quad of 1400+ people but could not organize a 6 entrant round robin of 1400+ people in a single section has to be vanishingly few).
This is not even the most clearly wrong corner case in the current rules, which for my money is the ECF rating conversion formula (they went to a 4 digit FIDE esque rating, but the rulebook formula retains the 3 digit conversion only; although Tim Just put a note that it may no longer be a valid conversion, the old conversion has not been removed and no replacement has been added).
Quick comment. Two people entered three times each cannot be a six-entrant round robin because each of the three entrants of a person only played three of the other five entrants, and thus failed the round robing all-play-all requirement. A rated game has to be between two people so one person cannot attempt to enter twice and play themself.
The categories are for certification advances. A two-round Swiss is a swiss but does not qualify as even a category D Swiss (which needs at least three rounds). A six or eight player round robin, with the highest rated being 1300, is a round robin but does not qualify as a category R round robin.
There have been numerous “clever” ways to try to reinterpret clear rules but they are merely “clever” while not actually being clever.
The deadline for submitting ADMs passed months ago. At this point, any other motions would be membership meeting motions (if passed at the membership meeting) or else simply just a Delegate motion (DM). The latter is least desirable as it is considered at the very end of the meeting and those motions are often referred to committee or the Executive Board.
If it is a rules motion, it either has to be passed at two Delegates meetings or pass with a super-majority. A rules motion that isn’t on the advance agenda probably is just going to get referred to Rules for next year anyway.
But it isn’t clear to me if the TDCC certification requirements are matters under the purview of the Delegates or the EB. I see a note on the TD Certification requirements page that it was updated in June of 2024, but I cannot find either a Delegate or an EB motion that led to that update. (There used to be a list online maintained throughout the year by the Liebermans of Board motions, but apparently nobody took up the task of doing that when they passed.)